James M., Appellant. v. << (1998)

 The determination of Family Court that respondent sexually abused his stepdaughter and thereby neglected his two other children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct. Act § 1046 [b];  Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 117, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914, rearg. denied 71 N.Y.2d 890, 527 N.Y.S.2d 772, 522 N.E.2d 1070).   The order, however, recites that the three children were abused.   Where, as here, an order and decision conflict, the decision controls (see, Di Prospero v. Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 479, 480, 480 N.Y.S.2d 784).   We therefore modify the order by deleting the first and second ordering paragraphs and substituting therefor the following:  “ADJUDGED that the facts sufficient to sustain the petition herein have been established, in that:  the Respondent did abuse the subject child Christina M. and thereby neglect the subject children Richard R. and Billie M.”, and “ADJUDGED that the above-named child Christina M. is an abused child as defined in Family Court Act § 1012(e)(iii) and that the above-named children Richard R. and Billie M. are neglected children as defined in Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)” (see generally, CPLR 5019[a];  Littlefield v. Goldome Bank, 142 A.D.2d 978, 530 N.Y.S.2d 400).   Finally, we conclude that respondent received meaningful representation (see, Matter of James HH. [Larry HH.], 234 A.D.2d 783, 784–785, 652 N.Y.S.2d 633, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 812, 657 N.Y.S.2d 405, 679 N.E.2d 644).

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: